I'd like to inform you that in wake of the new "Titans" series being announced for 2018, I've went ahead and created a wiki for this series. I just have one issue.
The url "titans.wikia.com" is used as a redirect for this wiki. Can you assist in deleting it as a redirect so I can use it for Titans Wiki? Considering that the titans are just a small part of the overarching DC universe, I think the url is more fitting at Titans wiki rather than sitting as a redirect that nobody uses for this wiki.
I've read the thread on Tupka's wall aready.
I will thank you not to spam all of the administrators' walls with your concerns when one administrator's answer doesn't satisfy you.
We are all aware of each other's walls, and we are more or less unified in our stance.
Suffice it to say that as an overarching DC related wiki covering other media etc - and generally, doing it well - there is no benefit to us in giving up these redirects - that is why we have them. While we currently receive little benefit from this particular one, we would, once the show comes out.
Splinter wikis like the one you have started are detrimental to this wiki's growth, and we can't support them with that in mind.
A few years ago, Wikia came to us and begged us to convert our character page templates to Lua. Instead of listening to our warnings that we don't use the same templates as the Marvel database, they just ported the Marvel version to our wiki, and broke a bunch of things. We did our best to fix them, but after the initial rollout, they provided no further support, and stuff just stayed broken.
A few years later, they came up with portable infoboxes, which admittedly made the site look better on mobile. However, the conversion broke several basic and important functions of the infoboxes, and when - as before - the guy who was converting our templates just ghosted us without any further help or instruction, an even longer list of broken things has been waiting to be resolved.
And then it occurred to us that we could resolve literally all of our issues by returning most of the templates to their former state. (And simultaneously regain the ability to add or remove things to templates as needs arise). The only downside is looking ugly on mobile, and marginally slower load times.
You can put "N/A". We used to have a thing that also categorized them as Black and White issues, and removed the red-link, but since the move to portable infoboxes, that coding's broke, and we don't know how to fix it.
I just read your post on publication date vs. cover date. I've been adding the "Day" field to a lot of New 52 titles lately and, occasionally, have had to fix dates up with the PubMonth and PubYear fields.
I think (believe, hope?) I've been doing this correctly and sincerely hope that my changes weren't the trigger for your message.
I may have explained pubmonth and pubyear before, but those should only be used if the issue was delayed for some reason, and ended up published in a month more or less than 2 months from the publication date. (And due to some weird coding problem, you HAVE to use pubyear if you use pubmonth, even if it came out in the same year).
That's just for your information. I haven't spotted you doing anything wrong (but I also haven't been checking up on you!). If you have something you want me to check on, just send me a link, and I'll have a look :)
The forum post was just to take care of some concerns that new users hadn't caught on.
Thanks for the reply. I've noticed that many of the 1st wave of New 52 publications don't have the day field, thereby keeping them from being categorized into a specific publication date. I went through Aquaman Volume 7 issues and have started on the Catwoman Vol 4 issues.
Yes, I didn't create the weekly categorization/day field until 2014 or so, I think, and then I went back to 2000 and started working my way forward with it, so that's why more recent issues are missing the field.